January 06, 2010

Categories:

Democracy Arsenal's Michael Cohen rips into a recent report by the current top U.S. military intelligence official in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, released through an influential think tank, the Center for New American Security, apparently without Pentagon authorization.

The report slams the intelligence effort in Afghanistan and urges more cultural knowledge for intel officers working in Afghanistan, among other recommendations. No objections there, but cultural knowledge of Afghanistan is not likely to be a requirement for the majority of the 100,000 U.S. troops being deployed to Afghanistan. It was released this week, just days after seven CIA officials were killed in Khost, and seems to disparage civilian intelligence efforts in Afghanistan. Cohen:

The top military intelligence official in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn has put out a new paper basically arguing that intelligence gathering Afghanistan ... ain't too good. He says of intel officials in Afghanistan," are ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced ... and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers." Flynn basically argues that the intel community is spending too much time worrying about the enemy and not enough about the population. Considering the incorporation of COIN thinking into all elements of the military this is hardly surprising. It did however, seem in bad taste, that the report was released days after seven CIA operatives were killed in Khost by an Al Qaeda double agent. But here's the best part, this wasn't some leaked report — Flynn published it under his own name via CNAS, an outside think tank. And guess what? The Pentagon is pissed:

"I think it struck everybody as a little bit curious, yes ... My sense is that this was an anomaly and that we probably won't see that (in the future)," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. ”It was an unusual and irregular way to publish a document of this nature."

What the hell is going on here? How does a report like this get released without going through the chain of command, blindsiding civilian leaders? It's almost like leaking a major strategic review in order to force the President's hand on military decision-making. ... But the ever astute Judah Grunstein gets to the heart of the issue, namely that Flynn's suggestions could risk further militarizing development efforts.

CNAS fellow Tom Ricks writes on his Foreign Policy blog: "As I understand it, the paper was released through CNAS because Gen. Flynn wanted to reach beyond his own chain of command and his own community and talk to people such as commanders of deploying infantry units about what kind of intelligence they should be demanding." In other words — it was released outside the chain of command quite deliberately.

What's more, some sources suggest the possibility that the report might have been authorized by one part of the DoD (if not others). The report's genesis seemed to be a talk Flynn gave at CNAS as part of a series it runs called "Voices from the Field."

Also strongly suggested was the possibility that Flynn was the proxy and taking the hit for someone bigger in the field, namely Gen. Stan McChrystal, who has previously been asked by the White House to provide his advice to the president in private.

More headaches for CNAS co-founder Michele Flournoy, now under secretary of defense for policy, about whether her influential think tank is back-channeling the generals and COIN mafia outside of the chain of command?

UPDATE: A senior Pentagon official says Flynn's report "caught everybody by surprise – his commander, Centcom, and this building."

"Forgetting for a moment the venue in which this was published, and keeping with the caveat that [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] has not read it yet, I think that he historically has been supportive of people taking very critical looks at themselves," Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Did Flynn not have outlets within the chain of command where he could convey this information?

"There are many alternatives to disseminate it -- both within the buidling and outside," Morrell said.

One concern, the Pentagon official said: the report was not vetted for security clearance issues.

Another contact said that it was his understanding Flynn's report was cleared by his commander, "M4" -- Gen. McChrystal.

Wow, there's a chance World Peace may be at hand. If the DOD and the DIA start an 'Intelligence War' with each other, it should last indefinitely, since both sides will be unarmed. And if all the other nations of the world form a coalition to keep the 'Intelligence War' in the US going, the DOD and the DIA will be so involved with each other they won't have any time left to meddle in other country's affairs, or 'Nation Building'. And so long as the Spooks and the Generals keep fighting each other to determine which has the best 'Intelligence' (or, better stated, which are the dumbest), the world will be at Peace.

The Pentagon has wanted the lion share of CIA/DIA/NSA work since 1993. It's no secret to the folks that have walked the halls. If the TV inspired MG wants to make things that transparent, he better be preppared for the ramifications of the job at hand. High and Tight attitudes make for a clown college of intelligence gathering. Take the gloves off the CIA......and let them hunt. You on the other hand, go back to your Access Hollywood, and American Idol....and take a large dose of vallium. Everything will be better in the morning.

Laura, I disagree with the idea that this shows a deep flaw in CMR.
There's a lot wrong with civil-military relations in the U.S. but I wouldn't find the blame with a two star, but with a system that allows inter-service rivalry and even plain *****ing between executive and legislative. The military traditionally used the powers of both Congress and the President to pinball interests between them and get the most out of it. Yet the above case is not such a case.
Gen Flynn simply applies new means of communication to get his word, ideas and concept out for discussion just like any scholar would. Granted, a two star, or any other military officer would not be able to publish such documents in any other democracy (which are ALL parlamentarian - no split between legislative and exec. btw.) without risking his career, if he chooses the wrong words. Yet I doubt that such a paper indicates a deep flaw in CMR. When Brig Gen. Aylwin Foster of the British Army spoke about the failures of U.S. strategy in Iraq in 2004, he was basically doing nothing else.
Instead of jumping at the officers using such methods to learn or teach methods and procedures or show flaws in the current system, it would be better to look at last years discussion of the F-22 or the FCS to see flaws, even craters in civil-military relations.